Why does aveskde down vote thewayitis arguments?
He does his all the time and never has anything of intelligence to add.
The truth revealed 9/20/10. Evidence found in the Thewayitis conversations.
aveskde said:
"Your atheist debate reminded me, I need to downvote you some more. Thanks for the heads up!"
4
points
2
points
I don't downvote people for being Christian, and I'm not a Liberal. In truth I downvote people who give very wrong types of arguments, the type that would get an "F" from a grade-school teacher. I also tend downvote arguments that defend a wrong position, like creationism being true, or Islam being a religion that endorses peace, especially when those arguments are winning on a debate (I think people are drawn to upvote emotional arguments, even when flawed, so I counteract this). In the case of thewayitis, in addition to the above reasons I downvote him, I enjoy it because it bothers him so much. Side: Because he reads them AND enjoys it
0
points
And who would determine the wrong type of argument? All hail god of Createdebate. Again one claims no god and plays god. Aveskde, you need to take a good look at what it is you actually stand for, because you change sides more often than I shower. You claim you only use facts and then pick only the facts that fit into your little word. Time and time again you do this. The only thing consist about you is your inconsistency. The down-voting doesn't bother me, however it bothers me that you abuse down-voting by change the outcome of a debate. It gives a false outcome to the debate at hand. Is it that important to you to be on a winning side? What I enjoy is proving where you are wrong, wrong and wrong again. Checkout your picture next to the word wrong in the dictionary, never mind that is probably another definition you refuse to accept. Side: Because he is a dumb ass
And who would determine the wrong type of argument? All hail god of Createdebate. A wrong argument lacks logical coherency, uses incorrect authorities, takes authorities out of context, lacks consistency with its premises, uses emotion instead of evidence, etc. These are the rules of proper argumentation, and many people here follow them. You claim you only use facts and then pick only the facts that fit into your little word. Time and time again you do this. The only thing consist about you is your inconsistency. This is more a matter of proper authorities. Facts that come from a crackpot are less acceptable than those which come from an academic journal. It could also be that I have a better eye for spotting irrelevancies than you. The down-voting doesn't bother me, however it bothers me that you abuse down-voting by change the outcome of a debate. It gives a false outcome to the debate at hand. Is it that important to you to be on a winning side? It's important to me that a side which primarily consists of unsupported assertions, emotional appeals, fearmongering, etc. not win a debate because of voter apathy. What I enjoy is proving where you are wrong, wrong and wrong again. Checkout your picture next to the word wrong in the dictionary, never mind that is probably another definition you refuse to accept. You never once have. If you follow the rules, you might, but that would take much effort. Side: Because he reads them AND enjoys it
3
points
1
point
1
point
1
point
0
points
1
point
1
point
0
points
0
points
Below is the only reason that aveskde downvotes my arguments. Taking from a debate here, "Irony of Atheist" lawnman(1047) Disputed 1 point I have yet to admit this. I did not assert you did. I presumed you would reference the thread betwixt Zombee and I. But you have not actually demonstrated the invalidity of the inference: "...based on x-characteristics, god does not exist." I'll be waiting for that "valid and verbose" explanation. That is not the purpose of the examples. The examples evidence the distinction of truth and validity. Had she provided a syllogistic argument that validates her conclusion, I still would not have put it on trial. Why? She admits her position is "an un-provable belief. However, if you care to submit a syllogistic argument in support of your position, I will respond with a valid and verbose critique of its validity or invalidity. (I can't assume to know what your syllogistic argument is by a single pseudo-premise: ...based on x characteristics.) Thewayitis(507) Disputed 1 point There is a giant leap of faith to believe in anything that one has not witnessed first hand.
aveskde(497) Disputed 1 point There is a giant leap of faith to believe in anything that one has not witnessed first hand. No it isn't. That's what reasoning and evidence are for. The real leap of faith comes in trusting your first-hand experience so absolutely when it's all a simulation your brain creates for you. THAT is a leap of faith and most of us don't even realise it.
Thewayitis(507) Disputed 1 point No leap of faith you claim, then there must be a time machine. People build machines, the evidence. The reason, I have seen machines; cars, computers, etc. Therefore time machines must exist. Flawed reasoning. Just as evolution or the big bang theory is.
aveskde(497) Disputed 1 point No leap of faith you claim, then there must be a time machine. People build machines, the evidence. The reason, I have seen machines; cars, computers, etc. Like I said: we use evidence, theory and logic to extrapolate the past. The universe is highly symmetric, which allows us to do this. Therefore time machines must exist. Flawed reasoning. Just as evolution or the big bang theory is. Time machines don't exist. However those other two items do. That you deny them shows how fragile your beliefs are.
Thewayitis(507) Disputed 2 points My beliefs are not fragile in the least bit. You on the other hand get offensive. Don't judge others by your lack of faith. Time machines exist and a man of logic and reason would know this. I did not say a device that one can travel in time. What is a CLOCK? A machine that measures time, therefore a time machine. This was an intention trap and you fell for it. No wonder you believe in the Big Bang Theory and evolution, you are gullible. Aveskde, failed to have a response and the down-voting began. Side: Sore Loser
Time machines exist and a man of logic and reason would know this. I did not say a device that one can travel in time. What is a CLOCK? A machine that measures time, therefore a time machine. This was an intention trap and you fell for it. No wonder you believe in the Big Bang Theory and evolution, you are gullible. Equivocation. Look it up. Side: Because he reads them AND enjoys it
1
point
-1
points
In context, that quote makes sense. A lack of x (hair, religion, color, whatever) does not constitute just another variety of x. Why post an entirely new thread just so you can call him a dumbass? This is petty and it seems like you are just mad you can't 'win' a debate, or that your arguments get downvoted a lot. Side: Because he is a dumb ass
|